Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

from Wikipedia.....

Some abiogenic hypotheses gained limited popularity among geologists over the past several centuries. Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] It is generally accepted that abiogenic formation of petroleum has insufficient scientific support and that oil and gas fuels on Earth are formed almost exclusively from organic material.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau’s reliance on West to meet hefty greenhouse gas emission reductions could backfire

Claudia Cattaneo | May 16, 2016 6:25 PM ET

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made ambitious commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Paris last December — and now he will lean heavily on Canada’s western provinces to ensure he meets them.

That’s the unsettling conclusion of a report by the Canada West Foundation (CWF), appropriately titled “Look Out,” which urges Western provinces to “bury the hatchet” after years of bickering over pipelines and form a common front to protect their resource-based economies from Ottawa’s coming power grab.

The report by the Calgary-based think-tank, released Monday, also urges Western provinces to develop a common carbon price and design climate change policies appropriate for their economies, such as building a Western electricity grid that uses hydro produced in British Columbia and Manitoba to help Alberta and Saskatchewan get off coal and natural gas.

Indeed, B.C. has floated the idea of getting behind export bitumen pipelines important to Alberta if Alberta buys hydro from its controversial Site C dam, provided Ottawa comes up with some $1 billion in federal aid.

“No matter how we slice it, there is no escaping the conclusion that the bulk of emission reductions will have to come from the West,” says the report, written by Trevor McLeod and Shafak Sajid and inspired by Dylan Jones, the CWF CEO who will take over next month as federal deputy minister of Western Economic Diversification.

The report argues that Trudeau, despite claiming to want to develop a national plan that lets provinces chart their own path, has secured himself a “hammer” to get western provinces to toe the line.

It came to light on Jan. 27, when natural resources minister Jim Carr and environment and climate change minister Catherine McKenna announced an interim approval process in which federal decisions on pipelines and the Petronas-led Pacific North West LNG project will take into account upstream oil and gas emissions.

“The federal government can now refuse to permit a pipeline or LNG facility if it determines that B.C., Alberta or Saskatchewan has not done enough to reduce upstream GHG emissions,” the report says. “The western skeptic may well worry that the federal government has created a backdoor into provincial jurisdiction over the environmental management of projects — jurisdiction that has been guarded jealously by provincial governments for years.”

The first opportunities for Ottawa to crack the whip are imminent — decisions are due this year on whether to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (a recommendation from the National Energy Board is expected this week), and whether to issue a permit to Pacific North West LNG.

From Ottawa’s perspective, the West may seem easy to push around: Provincial economies dependent on resources like oil and gas production are obvious targets because of their outsized emissions; unlike consumers in Central Canada, which are also collectively big emitters, western voters are not essential to keeping Trudeau in power.

No matter how hard they try, western provinces are still not doing enough to make Trudeau whole: Alberta will still fall short despite the already onerous climate leadership plan announced by its NDP government last November; B.C. could see emissions rise considerably if its liquefied natural gas industry takes off, which is a priority of its Liberal government; Saskatchewan remains a heavy emitter per capita despite its big spending on technology like carbon capture and storage and its right-leaning government’s refusal so far to price carbon.

But there are questionable assumptions in the federal climate change strategy.

They include: that western provinces will agree to be sacrificial lambs and trade their economic well being so Ottawa can meet international expectations; that there are more carbon reductions to be had from Alberta, in particular; that consumers support such expensive re-engineering of the West’s energy system; that Trudeau can further delay or deny permits for energy infrastructure and alienate Christy Clark’s Liberal government, which is facing a provincial election next year; or promote the failure of Alberta’s like-minded NDP and its climate change plan by not delivering pipeline approvals; or instigate further opposition from Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall, the most likely to capitalize on western alienation and give Trudeau political opposition.

More broadly, the assumption is that while Canada starves the West, regardless of its climate, geography and geology to protect the environment, other countries will do the same. 

The CWS’s promotion of a western Canadian power grid is worth considering, but seems like another flavour-of-the-day solution, like carbon capture or ethanol in years past: it would be expensive, it could quickly fall out of favour because it is also controversial and it would sideline abundant and cheap natural gas, the clean burning fuel adopted by jurisdictions like China to meet their climate change commitments, even if not fashionable with the anti-fossil fuel movement in North America.

From the West’s perspective, the solution to Ottawa’s climate change plan is simple: Trudeau must show leadership by promoting and delivering energy project approvals. Absent that, he will face a hostile West with no incentive to further step up. That’s the West’s hammer, and it’s a big one.

Financial Post

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wynn is introducing all kinds of ideas to finish the province off financially for once and for all. Meanwhile, our fearless leaders continue to add hundreds of thousands of new arrivals to the carbon producing matrix ever year. Does anyone in government have even the slightest idea what they're talking about?.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/ontario-to-spend-dollar7-billion-in-sweeping-climate-change-plan/ar-BBt5Yhq?li=AAggFp5&ocid=SL5MDHP

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Wynn is introducing all kinds of ideas to finish the province off financially for once and for all. Meanwhile, our fearless leaders continue to add hundreds of thousands of new arrivals to the carbon producing matrix ever year. Does anyone in government have even the slightest idea what they're talking about?.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/ontario-to-spend-dollar7-billion-in-sweeping-climate-change-plan/ar-BBt5Yhq?li=AAggFp5&ocid=SL5MDHP

 

 

without even reading the link.....NO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Toronto- centric Liberals have are basing their climate change policy on reducing/banning Natural gas to heat homes....do they even have a clue how many people in rural areas are reverting to wood/wood pellets to heat their homes??? The Green energy act has a lot of people suffering and they are trying to save money anyway they can. Although cheap,burning wood for heat increases ghg's, co2, and decreases air quality. Unless they ban fireplaces, people will find away around these new policies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have banned burning wood for heating in Quebec already.  This phasing out of Gas is just another misguided policy.  There is a Brand Spanking New Gas powered generating station just around the corner from me about 2 years old.  Now they want to phase it out?  Why did we even build it if we have a surplus of electricity?  If I had the money I would remove myself from the electrical grid altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, this winter, a heating supply store in Northern New York state was advertising alternative energy source burning coal to heat your house. Talk about coming full circle....bet the liberals didn't plan on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, st27 said:

Believe it or not, this winter, a heating supply store in Northern New York state was advertising alternative energy source burning coal to heat your house. Talk about coming full circle....bet the liberals didn't plan on that.

Would live to see that. The only ad I can find is from 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks st27, likely too complicated for the average "digital" junky. :lol: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s02.pdf

Anthracite Coal

What is Anthracite Coal?

Anthracite Coal is a premium hard clean-burning coal mined out of Pennsylvania. It is one of the most economical fuel and heat sources in the world today. Anthracite coal produces the lowest cost per BTU and more consistent even heat, compared to other fuel sources such as wood pellets, fuel oil, natural gas, electricity, and wood. Anthracite coal burns very warm and clean producing no dirty soot or particle build up. It leaves no residue and produces no smoke.

Is Anthracite Coal the same as Bituminous Coal?

Anthracite coal and Bituminous coal are very different.

Anthracite Coal is a premium type of coal. It is very hard and compact. It is considered the highest quality of coal. It has the least amount of impurities, giving it the name “Clean Coal.” Anthracite coal has no soot residue and produces no smoke when consumed.

Bituminous Coal is a “soft coal” that contains tar-like particles within the coal. It is dirty to touch as well as burn. Because of these tar-like particles called “bitumen” it leaves soot like residue. It also produces dark smoke full of impurities and bitumen when consumed.

Is there any creosote in Anthracite Coal?

No, there is no creosote in Anthracite Coal. Anthracite coal and wood are very different fuel sources. There is no soot or smoke when burning Anthracite coal.

How many BTU’s are in Anthracite Coal?

There are around 13,500 BTU per pound of anthracite coal.

Is there more heat in Anthracite coal compared to wood?

Yes, there is more heat produced by burning anthracite coal compared to burning wood. This is because there is more BTU’s in anthracite coal.

How do I start Anthracite Coal?

Anthracite coal starts differently compared to other fuel sources. There are three important factors that must occur to start anthracite coal successfully. The three factors are air flow, heat source, and fuel. First, there must be air flow and the air must come from the bottom and flow up through the coal. The next necessity is there must be a hot source of heat such as a kindling fire or hot charcoal. The last necessity is there has to be enough anthracite coal to burn properly. This system of event occurs over a period of time and must be performed in stages. The first stage is clear all the ash to allow correct air flow. The next stage is to create a hot kindling or charcoal fire. The last stage is to cover the whole grate area one layer at a time with coal, allowing each layer to start burning before applying the next layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen this? It's disgusting:

http://www.qpbriefing.com/2016/06/02/ontarios-david-suzuki-climate-change-spot-wouldnt-fly-under-old-ad-rules-auditor-general/

Scroll down and watch DS scare the sh!t out of a group of 8 year olds.

Brainwashing at it's best/worst.

Once again, to reverse the alleged effects, hydro-carbon emissions would have to go to ZERO for 25 or more years.

Still think George got it right: "The people are f****d!"

 

Edited by Moon The Loon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DS was telling those kids the absolute truth, and basically saying exactly what George said, 'We are F___ked!' ...over 400 ppm carbon content over Antarctica now, feed-back loops are starting to wail, more methane coming out of the ground because of warming arctic, thus adding even more greenhouse effect, water without ice cover absorbs more of the sun's energy, greenhouse gasses block the Earth's infra-red radiation, Earth get's warmer, more previously trapped by tundra gasses escape, trees get fewer, less natural correction, sea level rises etc... etc... etc... all known, and all happening MUCH faster than first predicted. We are screwed.

By the way.... How's the weather where you are now? :lol:;)

Cheers mate,

Mitch

http://www.alternet.org/environment/antarctica-hits-highest-co2-level-4-million-years

Edited by Mitch Cronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep drinking the Koolaid aid folks. As long as China does nothing everything Canada achieves will mean nothing except introduce another tax that will NEVER disappear.

"  Shut down ALL of Canada' energy sector and 192 megatons per year of CO2 is eliminated. 

Meanwhile China's coal fleet alone emits 4,000 megatons per year."

Brad Wall

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koolaid??? Something tells me you've missed something Jaydee... Forget money, this is now about whether or not our species can even survive the mess we've created. Sure, let the idiots keep playing their games with carbon credits and trades etc, all of which is rendered moot while our global climate goes into auto-tilt... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes KoolAid Mitch. Do we have Climate change? Absolutely! Are Canadians the problem? Absolutely not !

If even a fraction of this article is true, Carbon taxes ( in Canada ) are just another ugly unnecessary tax grab by the politicians that cannot or refuse to control their spending.  Aka Justine....Wynne..Notley

 

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

 

A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the “Big Four” polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn’t seem very dirty now, do we?"

 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. Arguing over who should be cutting emissions at this point is much like the proverbial rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. We're going down. The first easily recognized signs of the certainty of that will probably start as folks in Miami begin to realize their property values are vanishing, but that won't much matter anyway, since we'll be experiencing global financial collapse at the same time (if not sooner?)

You go and put those chairs anywhere you want them, but remember; we live on a finite piece of rock, and share an atmosphere surrounding the whole rock.... there are no state boundaries as far as the air is concerned.

...and btw, seriously, if you own any property within 100 ft of sea level, sell it quick before everyone wakes up to that truth. It won't be a slow process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch: you are both right. The world right now could be best described as being a boat that is sinking because the occupants at the back keep drilling holes in the hull that counteract any bailing done by those in the front. As long as the major polluters (measured in total tons, not per capita) do nothing, the rest of us can only prepare for the climate change. I guess we will see sooner or later why Greenland was called that, what the arctic will look like with a return to the forests etc that were there in the past . 

As individuals we can at least feel good by reducing our impact .... eg. getting rid of gas powered lawn mowers (replace with electric), smaller cars, etc etc etc. despite the reality that nothing we do will have a hope in hell of changing things unless the others in the boat stop drilling the holes. I don't believe they will despite the belief some folks have that our example will change their ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Malcolm said:

As long as the major polluters (measured in total tons, not per capita) do nothing, the rest of us can only prepare for the climate change.

I'm trying to understand your position Malcolm.

Can you explain why you think we should measure major polluters on a total pollution basis and not a per capita basis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mrlupin said:

I'm trying to understand your position Malcolm.

Can you explain why you think we should measure major polluters on a total pollution basis and not a per capita basis?

 

I am surprised you would ask.  Surely the total tonnage going into the atmosphere is more harming than the per capita number? 5 gallons of water per passenger will not sink a ship but 10,000 gal. coming in from a single source will def. sink the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's twisted logic...

What is this "single source" ? A country? Comprised of people...

Like it or not, as someone from the top 10% in wealth on this planet YOU contribute to pollution way more than the 90% bellow you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mrlupin said:

That's twisted logic...

What is this "single source" ? A country? Comprised of people...

Like it or not, as someone from the top 10% in wealth on this planet YOU contribute to pollution way more than the 90% bellow you.

BS. What matters to the world and the future of it's climate  is the total tonnage of pollution released into the atmosphere , not how much per capita. . In very simple terms, 100 people who pee 1 gallon per hour will take much more time to fill a pool than 10,000 who pee 1/2 gallon an hour....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and in total Canada is what, 1% of the total volume of carbon emissions.  We should be focusing on other things.  Not reduction and carbon credits.  we should be developing and manufacturing technologies that maintain the status quo or reduce overall emissions in Canada.  It is countries like China that need to drastically reduce emissions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this